ملاحظة : تم نشر هذه المقالة على موقع مؤسسة بيتلزمان الألمانية ... للذهاب إلى المقالة على الموقع اضغط هنا! *This article has been published in Bertelsmann Foundation website "Future Challenges" ... click here!
As the current wave of unrest permeates the Arab world, Jordan sustains a unique domestic situation that needs careful consideration before any shift in its current political set-up can be predicted. Inspired by what has happened in Tunisia and Egypt, Jordanian youth, has now begun to realize that a tremendous improvement in domestic policy can be achieved if they have the courage to start it by themselves. This mission is harder to accomplish than one might think, but it is also easier to realize than might be suggested at sight. What’s easy is that everyone agrees that the country needs emergency reforms; what’s not so easy is to say which the red lines beyond which reform should not venture.
 |
An old lady carrying a sign saying: "People Want the Regime to Reform"
photo by Reem Mann |
Up to now, no one has raised a critical voice saying "People Want the Regime to Fall". Instead, protests are gathered under the slogan "People Want the Regime to be Reformed". No one is calling for the replacement of the Hashemite king and almost every element in the broad spectrum of Jordanian opposition groups declares loyalty to the Hashemite monarchy. Even so, a wide array of Jordanians is now demanding a change in the current autocracy in favor of a constitutional monarchy. Under Jordanian standards of freedom of speech, this type of dissent used to be considered “impudent” - at least before Tunisia. On top of this are those many critical voices that are turning their attention to His Majesty King Abdullah II. For many years, such direct criticism of the King was considered an uncrossable ‘red line’. Indeed, anyone who dared to voice even the most constructive criticism of the monarchy would most likely end up in front of a military tribunal.
Up to now, no one has raised a critical voice saying "People Want the Regime to Fall". Instead, protests are gathered under the slogan "People Want the Regime to be Reformed". No one is calling for the replacement of the Hashemite king and almost every element in the broad spectrum of Jordanian opposition groups declares loyalty to the Hashemite monarchy. Even so, a wide array of Jordanians is now demanding a change in the current autocracy in favor of a constitutional monarchy. Under Jordanian standards of freedom of speech, this type of dissent used to be considered “impudent” - at least before Tunisia. On top of this are those many critical voices that are turning their attention to His Majesty King Abdullah II. For many years, such direct criticism of the King was considered an uncrossable ‘red line’. Indeed, anyone who dared to voice even the most constructive criticism of the monarchy would most likely end up in front of a military tribunal.
Nowadays, especially in the blogosphere, readers can find a variety of articles attacking the King’s domestic performance over the last 11 years, during which – in the opinion of some, at least - the country has taken a step backwards in terms of higher unemployment, widespread corruption, poor economic growth and a rising deficit. Reinforcing these criticisms are concerns about the polarization of Jordanian society. About 2 million of the population are Palestinian refugees who have obtained Jordanian citizenship, and are perceived as being directly counterposed to the traditional “East Bank” Jordanians (now in the minority). There is a widely held opinion that domestic policy in the kingdom during the reign of Abdullah II has been skewed significantly in the favor of the minority East Bankers. Laith Shubielat is a retired Jordanian opposition leader with an independent attitude. He was imprisoned many times during the 90s for political reasons and has maintained a very tense relationship with the Royal Palace. He recently addressed the king in a letter asking for immediate steps to be taken towards a true and genuine reform process, and insisted that the Hashemite throne is a key factor for the safety and stability of this corner of the world. A few days later, the King fired his Prime Minister and directed the new government to allow public gatherings - a right that was previously not allowed without prior permission from the authorities.
When I asked Shubielat for his opinion on some of these changes, he said: "The regime is conducting a conversation with itself!” Shubielat, of course, was not happy with these new steps, but insisted that reform must occur and come from “above”. But what is worth noting is that Shubielat, in spite of his harsh criticism of the king, insists that the monarchy is the only type of regime that can cope with the weak fabric of Jordanian society, given the divisions within the populace, not only amongst East Bankers and the Palestinian-Jordanians, but also between the various tribes of the East Bankers. In the past three years, Jordan has witnessed an increase in the number of clashes between tribes throughout the kingdom, and for many East Bankers tribal loyalty is now the first priority, coming even before loyalty to Jordan itself.
Another element to be considered amongst the forces for reform is civil actions, in the form of protests and strikes. As soon as the ban on public gatherings was lifted, Friday prayers in downtown Amman became a springboard for peaceful protests calling for reform. They have occurred every Friday since January and are made up of a wide range of voices - the Islamic Action Front, trade unions, and civic activists of all ages. What was really worth to notice is the gap between the people and the Jordanian parties that lack clear programs in political or economical terms, people's direct demands to the government and the monarchy were more mature and advanced than any argument presented by a Jordanian party. Many pro-government figures argue that even if there were political reforms in Jordan, it will be very hard to find qualified team to take over the government. 
As an aside, the journalists and writers of Jordan have held their own protests against censorship. As mentioned above, criticism of the king and the royal family can lead to prison and the news outlets in Jordan are expected to practice rigorous self censorship. What is frightening to me is the very recent trend of splits within the protestors - those calling for reform, and those preferring to maintain the status quo and expressing undying loyalty to the king. Indeed, some of those who have declared their unwavering loyalty to the monarchy have attempted to portray those “with critical voices” as unpatriotic and seditious in some way. Naseem Tarawneh, proprietor of “
The Black Iris”, a very popular blog in Jordan, has stated that those calling for reform “are NOT and should NOT be considered as being disloyal to the country”. Amongst the King’s supporters, we can find pro-monarchy rallies throughout the country (with a tribal flavour, of course) purportedly celebrating the King’s birthday (which was more than month ago) and at the same time calling for the status quo to maintain its current character. But what is really worrying is that the majority of those supporting the regime, look upon the “reformers” as being disloyal to the country. Many senior tribal figures accuse the reform movement in Jordan of being part of a bigger conspiracy to turn Jordan into a Palestinian state.
There is another element in the Jordanian equation that has not been seriously addressed by the current movement: How will Israel react to any upcoming change in Jordan? Relations between both sides are tense after statements by many Israeli officials and lawmakers advocating a transfer of the Palestinians remaining in the West Bank, and even those in Israel, to Jordan - and declaring Jordan as the Palestinian state. MK Aryeh Eldad is marketing the idea very well in the Israeli Knesset. So what would the Israeli response be if Jordan decided to annul the peace treaty? As drastic as it may sound, this is a major demand for many reformers who argue that, besides its general unpopularity among the population, the treaty has not had the positive impact upon the kingdom’s economy that was promised when it was signed.
Israeli interference can be expected if any reforms result in policies that do not serve the Israeli interest. This interference could even take the shape of military intervention on Jordanian soil to suppress any attempt to transfer Palestinian refugees back to their homeland.
*Special Thank to: Peter Hagen, Adam Butler.
